The sub-headline made me laugh out loud. Responding to truckloads of rockets slamming into Israeli towns, Israel has struck back over the last several days, killing upwards of 1oo Palestinians, about half of them civilians. And the sub-head declared “Peace talks threatened.” Ha! Rodney Dangerfield must be a Press-Enterprise editor. Peace talks? The disconnect between the talkers and the fighters hasn’t been this bad since Jackie Gleason first threatened Audrey Meadows with “one of these days Alice: POW! ZOOM!”
The situation in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel baffles understanding, so much so that discussions about its causes and solutions defy rationality. Palestinian terrorists continue to fire rockets at Israeli neighborhoods, and, from time to time, Israel strikes back. This latest cycle of madness dates to last year’s Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, hailed at the time as a major step forward in the “peace process.” Johnny Carson must be writing the copy, because the process in and around Israel, for a full half century, has been anything but peaceful.
Birthed into war in 1948, Israel has fought major wars and relatively minor border skirmishes ever since. The string of major conflicts — ‘48, ‘56, ‘67, ‘73, ‘82 – was succeeded by terrorist suicide bombings, border incursions, and the current practice of lobbing hundreds of missiles every month ever deeper into Israel. As it stands today, the bloody history of the Middle-East version of Hatfield vs. McCoy renders the very idea of “peace talks” laughable.
We either laugh or cry.
In fact, the Palestinians are delivering the best one-liners. Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia – one of the talkers not communicating with those launching the rockets — offered this gem: “What the Israelis are doing doesn’t lend the peace process any credibility.” Really? How about what your guys are doing? Not to be outdone, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas complained “the response to these rockets [the ones we shoot at Israel by the hundreds every month] can’t be that harsh and heinous.” Gosh darn it Israel, fire in some water balloons and chocolate bullets, but that’s it! We send C-4, you send See’s candy, get it!?
Of course, the suffering on both sides is all too real; no one is laughing in Gaza or southern Israel. Worse, the end result of this minor blood-letting will be major blood-letting. As Muslim terrorists acquire more sophisticated and lethal weapons, Israel will either perish or strike with overwhelming force, perhaps of the nuclear variety. Such an outcome, not certain but possible, would push the whole world to the edge of annihilation. Stopping the madness now is the only rational course, but what’s the fix?
Beginning with Jimmy Carter and continuing with every succeeding administration, America has been committed to the “peace process” for 30 years, to no avail. The roadblock standing in the way of Middle-East peace isn’t difficult to understand. Many Palestinians and their supporters are committed to Israel’s destruction. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been an eloquent and unambiguous spokesman in this regard. “The main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime….There is no legal basis for [Israel's] existence… Israel must be wiped off the map” are statements so shocking to the Western mind that analysts strain to discern acceptable interpretations. He couldn’t mean what we think he means, could he?! In fact, Ahmadinejad speaks directly to the stated desire of numerous terrorist groups and millions of their sympathizers.
Hamas, the ruling authority in the Gaza Strip, has steadfastly refused to alter its charter which “explicitly calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with an Islamic Theocracy.” Such inflexible hostility mocks the very idea of negotiations.
The flipside is Israel’s position; the land occupied by Israel is the Jews’ ancient heritage. Leaving is simply unthinkable. So, the irresistible force has met the immovable object. Peace will engulf the Middle-East when one of two things happen.
One, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims around the world — and Israel – accept the “two state” solution, “two separate states in the Western portion of the historic region of Palestine, one Jewish and another Arab, to solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Arab inhabitants would be given citizenship by the new Palestinian state; Palestinian refugees would likely be offered such citizenship as well. Arab citizens of present-day Israel would likely have the choice of staying with Israel, or becoming citizens of the new Palestine.” As you can tell from the use of “likely” in that Wikipedia quote, the fine points are yet to be ironed out. A 2007 poll indicated just under 50% of Palestinians favor the “two state” solution. Israel has proposed a two-state scenario limiting the sovereignty of the Palestinian state. That’s no joke, but affirms that most comics are Jewish.
Two, Israel, one way or another, ceases to exist as a Middle-East entity. Since NASCAR fans will support Hillary before Israel will voluntarily relocate, this outcome cannot see the light of day apart from all-out war. Hmmm, maybe I should re-read the Revelation.
From my chair, the two-state solution alone is capable of achieving sustainable peace in Palestine. Yet, formidable barriers continue to block further discussion of this path to peace, never mind its implementation. What to do?
Somebody better think of something, and quick.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Middle-East Mess, Video